Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Brahim

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 522
1
Snapshot RAID / Re: Snapshot RAID Pause Resume ?
« on: December 10, 2017, 12:31:02 pm »
i don't have Command Execution Center in Toolbox.

Are you sure you are running RAID-F and not tRAID?
You should provide screenshot of what you are looking at.

2
Snapshot RAID / Re: Snapshot RAID Pause Resume ?
« on: December 10, 2017, 11:14:38 am »
The Pause/Resume is always there.
Just hidden under Toolbox -> Command Execution Center.

3
Snapshot RAID / Re: Snapshot RAID Pause Resume ?
« on: December 10, 2017, 09:43:37 am »
Let the Create task run in one pass.

The Pause/Resume feature is there. However, users have reported issues with it. It works in my test setups. However, I was never able to get to the bottom of why others have had issues with it. The speed should improve. You will see lower speeds when it is processing lot of small files.

So, let it do its thing. :)

4
News and Updates / Re: FlexRAID One (Roadmap)
« on: December 10, 2017, 09:32:21 am »
In light of this news, is there any chance of implementing some sort of "unified license" prior to FlexRAID One becoming available?
...
Yes, there will be one.

As in, granting existing users the ability to switch between RAID-F and tRAID without having to purchase a new license?
...
That won't happen. Transparent RAID customers are paying more. So, there will be some sort of conversion.
Part of the goal of this unification is to clean up the licensing with only two types of licenses both with all features enabled (unlimited disks and limited disks).
That will get us to what you want (being able to switch between the RAID approaches or have different arrays each for the right type of data).

...
I've been a RAID-F user since before tRAID was even announced and over the last couple of years I've discovered that as I have expanded my array (now ~45TB) it has outgrown RAID-F's ability to reliably protect my data.  It's not that RAID-F is broken, just that I'm unable to keep such a large array completely static for long enough to complete a Verify task (which takes well over a day).  I've been considering making the switch to tRAID instead, but I don't really want to spend the money on a whole new license if my existing license will allow me to use the tRAID engine under the FlexRAID One banner.
...
Great that you are keeping an eye on the state of your data and realizing it having more dynamic data that isn't fitting for RAID-F.
A platform that let's you easily restructure your data as it morphs is what's being worked on.

Remember, I am the number one customer of FlexRAID. ;)
My personal production arrays include a RAID-F array, a tRAID array, and several sRAID arrays. As strange as it might sound, I build these solutions for me first. I created sRAID because I have a number of VMs that massively benefit from it. More on all this later.

...
On the other hand, I've also been around long enough to know better than to expect FlexRAID One to become available quickly, so I don't really want to spend the next year or two with my data minimally protected while I wait for it.
...
If you have been around long enough, then you know that - yes, I do take long hiatus - however, major improvements always follow my return. ;)

...
So, what do you think Brahim?  Can we work something out so licensed users can migrate between platforms during the limbo between the One announcement and when it is released?  Obviously the general terms of the licenses would remain the same (one instance of FlexRAID at a time[ie. can't run RAID-F and tRAID simultaneously] on one computer and locked into one OS [Windows or Linux]), but this would be a nice step towards the new unified-FlexRAID paradigm.
Don't be too frugal. Get a tRAID license now.  ;D
As stated before, there will be a unified license. The conversion process will be discussed at the appropriate time.
The focus for now is on delivering a product that's worthy of further discussion.

5
News and Updates / Re: FlexRAID One (Roadmap)
« on: December 10, 2017, 08:41:16 am »
When can we expect this to be released?
No ETA.  Just follow the progress of the roadmap. Once you hear of the first beta, then you'll know we are close. :P

6
Gallery / Re: Before and After
« on: December 10, 2017, 08:38:02 am »
LOL!
Growing appetite, I would say. :)

Beautiful current setup though.

7
You should typically be able to access the data of the failed disk if the disk failed without corrupting its system.

Now, if the file system corrupted, all is not lost as you can still restore the failed disk and then run a file system recovery tool on the restored disk to get the files back: https://www.easeus.com/resource/raw-files-recovery-software.htm


8
News and Updates / Re: Forum Mails sent after ages
« on: December 07, 2017, 09:28:07 am »
Have not had a change to look at this. Will check it out once I have a change too - likely much later given the current higher priorities.

9
General Discussion / Re: Unable to Restore, help!
« on: December 05, 2017, 12:39:56 pm »
You will get to a good configuration by doing what I stated previously.
Quote
So, delete the configuration, create a new configuration, compute new parity, and protect your current disks.

You won't be able to restore at this point. There are things we could do, but it would cost you as much as taking the failed disk to a data recovery service.

10
General Discussion / Re: Verify failure:
« on: December 05, 2017, 12:33:14 pm »
Thanks will try that. Should i disable the cron job i have for updating each day before recreating it and will i loose my settings?
Yes, delete that any scheduled task for that old config.

11
General Discussion / Re: Verify failure:
« on: December 05, 2017, 11:30:52 am »
Toolbox -> Advanced Commands -> Re-create.
When prompted to keep the parity, choose no.
If the task has issues clearing up the parity, hijack the PPU disk by assigning a drive letter, then quick format the drive, finally remove the added drive letter and retry the operation.


12
General Discussion / Re: Unable to Restore, help!
« on: December 05, 2017, 11:09:23 am »
there were 2 disk in DRU5 one was replaced by the new 8TB drive, the other is the one that failed.  DRU8 was part of DRU5 as it was the drive replaced by the 8TB drive.

That 8TB is still nowhere to be found in your configuration. So, the question of its whereabout lingers.

Back to my previous assumption, that 4TB never failed as evidenced by the fact that DRU5 is still made up of two 4TB drives. I suspect that you were reconfiguring your array by contracting and expanding and things did not go as planned. It looks like you expanded the array with a disk already in the pool (one of the DRU5 spans). Next time you wish to reconfigure the array, simply delete the current configuration, regain control of your disks, create a new configuration with the disks laid out the way you want, and compute new parity.

So, delete the configuration, create a new configuration, compute new parity, and protect your current disks.

13
General Discussion / Re: Unable to Restore, help!
« on: December 05, 2017, 10:24:04 am »
Also, per your screenshots, DRU8 is only 4TB. So, that 8TB new disk never made it to the array. What happened to it and where is it?

14
General Discussion / Re: Unable to Restore, help!
« on: December 05, 2017, 10:04:44 am »
The issue now is that DRU5 and DRU8 have the same volume signature. For this to happen, it not only has to be the same disk but also the same volume on that same disk.

Did you at some point tried to use DRU8 as the replacement disk for DRU5 because it was large enough to have the free space even though it was already in the pool?

FYI, removing DRU8 is not necessary as it is part of the parity. Removing DRU8 would be RAID contraction, and RAID contraction when you have a failed disk is a silly thing to attempt. Luckily, the UI won't let you do it.

15
General Discussion / Re: Verify failure:
« on: December 05, 2017, 09:12:15 am »
Rebuild the entire parity (recommended) or force sync verify it. The parity got corrupted at some point.
It is better to rebuild the parity anew as it also cleans up all metadata information.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 522